Welcome to RevLeft, our collective online space!
RevLeft has chalked up more than 2.5 million posts since 2001 and is now the oldest and biggest leftist discussion board on the web. Its basis is to provide a neutral discussion platform for the whole spectrum of the radical Left. Here everyone can discuss current political trends, theory, and historical issues and more from a revolutionary perspective.
Join thousands of fellow leftists from around the world and get in touch. Register your account and start posting now!

The statement that "the USA is an imperialist country" should be something almost self-evident that we can basically all just hear and nod and say "yep" (if it even really needs to be said at all) before moving on to something more directly practical or interesting without having to sit around and discuss it at length, but when it comes to the topic of Russian imperialism, this is not the case.

It's not the case with Russia, also because of the factor of *priority* -- which nation-state(s) should be *prioritized* for anti-imperialist efforts, the U.S. or Russia -- ?

This 'prioritization' factor speaks to the sub-issue / factor of *emphasis* -- do you really want to attend-to and put Russia's "imperialism" at the top of your political to-do list, or should it be the *U.S.* and *NATO* that should be dismembered first, with maybe Russia much lower down on that list -- ?

It's not the case with Russia, also because of the factor of *priority* -- which nation-state(s) should be *prioritized* for anti-imperialist efforts, the U.S. or Russia -- ?

This 'prioritization' factor speaks to the sub-issue / factor of *emphasis* -- do you really want to attend-to and put Russia's "imperialism" at the top of your political to-do list, or should it be the *U.S.* and *NATO* that should be dismembered first, with maybe Russia much lower down on that list -- ?

I think this is entirely missing the point. The working class organises against capitalism wherever they can. The working class in London, for example, obviously has more of an opportunity to affect British imperialism than Russian so the 'priority' is entirely practical. However fighting imperialism isn't a case of picking one imperialist side over another. Just because London workers can do more to affect British imperialism doesn't mean that lionising Russian imperialism as some sort of counter is in any way a practical or necessary step in this process.

Modern democracy is nothing but the freedom to preach whatever is to the advantage of the bourgeoisie - Lenin

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GiantMonkeyMan For This Useful Post:

I think this is entirely missing the point. The working class organises against capitalism wherever they can. The working class in London, for example, obviously has more of an opportunity to affect British imperialism than Russian so the 'priority' is entirely practical. However fighting imperialism isn't a case of picking one imperialist side over another. Just because London workers can do more to affect British imperialism doesn't mean that lionising Russian imperialism as some sort of counter is in any way a practical or necessary step in this process.

To be clear, I haven't been 'lionizing' Russian nationalism at all -- I maintain that, while we oppose capitalism and nationalism *entirely*, there *are* objective distinctions to be made, as for the objectively-discrete need for mass mobilizations in the streets (which issues should be prioritized for actual mass participation -- ?).

I'd much rather see anti-imperialist efforts against *the West*, meaning a public body-politic consciousness that tells the U.S. and NATO to leave Syria alone, rather than a mass-information campaign against Russia when Russia happens to be *defending* Syria from fundamentalist predations (ISIS).

I don't blame anyone who says that they don't like geopolitics and that they'd rather be against all forms of capitalism-imperialism *on principle*. Nonetheless, the vacuum of revolutionary hegemonic power leaves bourgeois nationalist geopolitics as a result, with material distinctions to be made, if only to address the immediate political situation.

"I'm not interested in indulging whims from members of your faction."
Seeing as this is seen as acceptable by an admin, from here on out when I have a disagreement with someone I will be asking them to reference this. If you want an explanation of my views, too bad.

No, it isn't -- being a liberal *ideologue* is the basis of reformism, because people then are subscribing to illusions in the system, that it can be 'fixed' and will then be fair to everyone, etc.

There *are* such things as popular struggles, and these can't be ignored -- think Arab Spring here. The intervention and influence of revolutionaries *can* potentially tip-the-scales in situations like these, where things could flop back over to nationalist hegemony, or else class-consciousness could be spread so that working-class people no longer think that the capitalist system would ever aim to benefit them.

Anything other than the classification of a Soviet country means that actions outside of its boundaries is imperialistic despite actions by other imperialist countries and entities (NATO).

Let's look at its popular person -- Igor Strelkov Girkin -- who favors a rightist monarchist system and became popular in 1999. Despite Russian actions in Syria, it is an imperialist country because of its existence of a capitalist oligarchy which has contributed in the increase of prostitution and other social ills like nationalism. They support the mental illness of nationalism and other idiotic individuals like Alexander Dugin and National Bolshevism.

Anything other than the classification of a Soviet country means that actions outside of its boundaries is imperialistic despite actions by other imperialist countries and entities (NATO).

Let's look at its popular person -- Igor Strelkov Girkin -- who favors a rightist monarchist system and became popular in 1999. Despite Russian actions in Syria, it is an imperialist country because of its existence of a capitalist oligarchy which has contributed in the increase of prostitution and other social ills like nationalism. They support the mental illness of nationalism and other idiotic individuals like Alexander Dugin and National Bolshevism.

Just because a country like Russia is capitalist and nationalist, doesn't automatically make it imperialist.

Obviously most of the contention on this thread revolves around how one defines 'imperialism', and I maintain that Russia cannot be qualitatively compared to the U.S. / NATO, in extent of imperialist-type actions.

If Russia was demonstrating the *same* kind of 'imperialism' as the West, it would at this point be looking to *encompass* and *incorporate* Syria into its (purported) 'empire', while in fact nothing of this sort is transpiring. Even an opposition-minded article from the corporate media outlines the current situation clearly, indicating *nothing* of a NATO-like takeover of Syria, even though Russia is now in a position to do so:

Is it not logical, therefore, that Russia will support power-sharing in Syria sufficient to enable the flow of reconstruction funding into the country? These officials also see the Moscow-effort to sustain Assad and expel the West.

The discussion itself probably is more on the theoretical side than the practical (but this is the theory forum after all?) What I'm arguing here though is that, even if the discussion is overwhelmingly "theoretical" / not directly centering praxis, the main conclusion(s) drawn from it (like whether or not "Russia is imperialist") have significant practical implications, like siding (or not siding) with far right-wing nationalists, imperialist military forces, and relying (or not relying) on media platforms provided by rival capitalist great powers to disseminate propaganda (on the U.S. side), as well as basically implying a leftist duty to embrace (or reject) a kind of capitalist state-sponsored "patriotism" on the Russian side.

I can't help but wonder what Becker would say about socialists in Russia or China even just agreeing to an interview on Radio Free Europe/Asia or Voice of America? You know, just a platform to promote socialism.

I think one of the more troubling implications of "Russia's not imperialist" line is that workers and genuine democratic and socialist forces against the Russian state(within Russia) and pro-Russian comprador-bourgeoisie(in the oppressed nations), will be(are) accused of attacking anti-imperialist states or anti-imperialist factions, thus aiding US imperialism(or even badjacketed as CIA agents). It reduces the workers and toiling masses to pawns in a geopolitical chessboard, and puts the agenda of revolution off into the distant future.

Imagine what kind of "shit shows" would arise if it was an acceptable revolutionary left position to hold that "The United States of America is not an imperialist country, it just wants to defend itself from fascist Islamic imperialism". Would it be a huge waste of time to go over the points made by those holding that position and try to convince everyone who might be seduced into that belief that it's demonstrably false? In theory, it probably would be a huge waste of time. But in practice, not really, at least not if that kind of negationism of U.S. imperialism's existence was a real, relatively prevalent discourse in leftist circles that needed refutation; then it would be important and necessary, I think. The statement that "the USA is an imperialist country" should be something almost self-evident that we can basically all just hear and nod and say "yep" (if it even really needs to be said at all) before moving on to something more directly practical or interesting without having to sit around and discuss it at length, but when it comes to the topic of Russian imperialism, this is not the case.

LOL, that actually sort of happened. It was called the "Soviet main danger" line, part of Deng Xiaoping's three worlds theory. A lot of Dengist parties argued that the main danger wasn't one's own imperialism or whatever imperialism's subjugating one's oppressed country, but Soviet social-imperialism. The third world(the semi-colonies and colonies) were to unite with the second world(imperialist powers like France, Japan, UK, ect.), as well with the imperialist superpower the US(first world), against the USSR(also first world superpower).

To that end, they argue for strengthening NATO, increasing military spending, aiding reactionary anti-Soviet regimes/rebels in the third world and siding with Cold Warriors on taking a harder stance against the USSR. In the third world, they united with pro-US/NATO compradors. And they made a lot of really elaborate arguments to support of these blatantly social-chauvinist positions. Fortunately, most of these parties died out by the 90s.

There's also a line that argued that the western Europe, Canada, Australia and Japan were/are actually oppressed by US imperialism. Due to the Marshall Plan, Bretton Woods, the presence of US military bases, the strengh of US industry post-war and dollar hegemony, some claimed that western Europe, Canada, Australia and Japan were not imperialist in their own right. Their imperialisms were merely derived from and subordinated to US imperialism, or they were even US neocolonies. This line had more widespread support across leftist tendencies and across the political spectrum, even to this day.

I think the "Russia's not imperialist" line is the ideological descendant of both. Difference being that the supporters of "Soviet main danger" line admitted they were siding with one imperialism against another, whereas the "Russia/China's not imperialist"(negationism of both imperialisms usually go hand and hand) supporters pretend Russia and China are just like more powerful versions of Venezuela and Cuba or some shit.

If you don't think any country besides the US is imperialist in its own right and not just an extension of US ultra-imperialism, of course Russia or China aren't imperialist nor can they be. And if you think fighting imperialism is a matter of siding with the "lesser evil" against the "main danger", then you'll enter into opportunistic alliances and neglect the fight against other imperialisms.

The correct line is what Karl Liebknecht said over a hundred years ago:"The main enemy is at home!"

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to John Nada For This Useful Post:

No, it isn't -- being a liberal *ideologue* is the basis of reformism, because people then are subscribing to illusions in the system, that it can be 'fixed' and will then be fair to everyone, etc.

There *are* such things as popular struggles, and these can't be ignored -- think Arab Spring here. The intervention and influence of revolutionaries *can* potentially tip-the-scales in situations like these, where things could flop back over to nationalist hegemony, or else class-consciousness could be spread so that working-class people no longer think that the capitalist system would ever aim to benefit them.

No chris, it's the insistence that we must engage with capitalist politics that makes you a reformist- which, however, explains your positions and your news spam.

"I'm not interested in indulging whims from members of your faction."
Seeing as this is seen as acceptable by an admin, from here on out when I have a disagreement with someone I will be asking them to reference this. If you want an explanation of my views, too bad.

According to Online Etymology Dictionary the term Third World was formulated in 1952 by French economic historian Alfred Sauvy to mean countries that were neither part of the West nor of the Iron Curtain[1]. Thus the term originally had a political meaning as it arose during the Cold War to define countries that remained non-aligned with either NATO or the Communist Bloc. The United States, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Western European nations and their allies represented the First World, while the Soviet Union, China, Cuba and their allies represented the Second World. This terminology provided a way of broadly categorizing the nations of the Earth into three groups based on political and politically-related economic divisions.

The Third World was normally seen to include many countries with colonial pasts in Africa, Latin America, Oceania and Asia. It was also sometimes taken as synonymous with countries in the Non-Aligned Movement. In the dependency theory of thinkers like Raúl Prebisch, Walter Rodney, Theotonio dos Santos, and Andre Gunder Frank, the Third World has also been connected to the world economic division as "periphery" countries in the world system that is dominated by the "core" countries.[2]

Due to the complex history of evolving meanings and contexts, there is no clear or agreed-upon definition of the Third World.[2] Some countries in the Communist Bloc, such as Cuba, were often regarded as "Third World". Because many Third World countries were extremely poor, and non-industrialized, it became a stereotype to refer to poor countries as "third world countries", yet the "Third World" term is also often taken to include newly industrialized countries like Brazil, India and China now more commonly referred to as part of BRICS. Historically, some European countries were non-aligned and a few of these were and are very prosperous, including Austria, Sweden, Finland, and Switzerland.

In present-day English, the term 'Third World' is used in reference to "the developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America"[3]. The term usually suggests poverty and low level of industrial development and thus it is the opposite of the term developed nations. This usage is considered by some to be offensive.[4]

The term Third World is still largely used interchangeably with the least developed countries, the Global South and developing countries.

No chris, it's the insistence that we must engage with capitalist politics that makes you a reformist- which, however, explains your positions and your news spam.

Well, how else are revolutionaries supposed to approach real-world developments, like the Guantanamo Bay prisoners, international labor solidarity, or Trump's strengthening of national borders to curtail immigration -- ?

*My* critique of many here at RevLeft is that there's too much *abstentionism* from daily real-world political realities, which is synonymous with being 'ultra-left' (too dismissive and overly principled, given actual empirical situations) (abstentionist).

Okay, since there's been so much spillover of off-topic flaming-type posts into various threads, I'm going to start issuing warnings and infractions for such. The threads to watch are these in particular:

Flaming is universally not permitted on RevLeft. While we understand that many issues discussed here are controversial and emotionally charged, we also understand that emotional responses can get out of hand. This means that posts containing little but personal insults, name-calling and/or threats are not permitted.

Repeated flaming in posts containing nothing of substance except flames will result in warning points, and incorrigible offenders may be banned. In some cases threads which degenerate into "flame wars" will be locked with the participants prohibited from reviving them in any form.

Procedure for administrative action, i.e. The Warning System

These guidelines are aimed at dealing with users who breach the board guidelines in relation to flaming, trolling, spamming or social prejudice.
When a user breaches these guidelines the following procedure applies:
Procedure for administrative action, i.e. The Warning System These guidelines are aimed at dealing with users who breach the board guidelines in relation to flaming, trolling, spamming or social prejudice. When a user breaches these guidelines the following procedure applies: 1) Warning by mod or admin, offending posts/threads are removed. 2.) If after a warning the warned behavior continues the user may be given an infraction. Infractions should follow a warning to a user. Infractions for spam or flaming should be given for repeated, regular cases, not one-off posts. Moderators are removed as moderator after 3 infractions and subject to the same consequences as all other members after 5. Forum Moderators and Global Moderators may not infract Administrators. Administrators may only be infracted by other Administrators.

Reaching 5 Infractions or 100% Warning Level

1) When any user receives 5 infractions/100% warning level for the first time, it will result in a one week temporary suspension of posting abilities. 2) Infractions for Flaming, Spam, and Trolling expire after six months. A user returning from suspension must not receive any more infractions until previous infractions expire. 3) Each time a user reaches 100% warn again (or receives infractions immediately following suspension), the length of the suspension is doubled and a poll is held to determine the status of their membership with these options: Do Nothing Ban

Chris, you brought up the ckaihatsu spamming thread in this thread, shouldn't you be infracting yourself?

"I'm not interested in indulging whims from members of your faction."
Seeing as this is seen as acceptable by an admin, from here on out when I have a disagreement with someone I will be asking them to reference this. If you want an explanation of my views, too bad.

Those are examples of you spamming, Ckaihatsu. You derailed this thread by bringing up your spamming, the soley thread you necro'd from a year ago to post spam about pepper flakes, and the other thread is just copy and pasted news spam from your inbox. You closing the first ckaihatsu spamming thread is against board policy but it's funny that what you've essentially done is close the thread where we were containing the comments as documentation, and opened up the rest of the forum to spam.

"whatever they might make would never be the same as that world of dark streets and bright dreams"

Those are examples of you spamming, Ckaihatsu. You derailed this thread by bringing up your spamming, the soley thread you necro'd from a year ago to post spam about pepper flakes, and the other thread is just copy and pasted news spam from your inbox. You closing the first ckaihatsu spamming thread is against board policy but it's funny that what you've essentially done is close the thread where we were containing the comments as documentation, and opened up the rest of the forum to spam.

This is actually kind of funny since you're admitting at the end there that you're spamming.

Chris, it was you who brought the ckaihatsu spamming thread into this thread. Don't try to rewrite history.

"I'm not interested in indulging whims from members of your faction."
Seeing as this is seen as acceptable by an admin, from here on out when I have a disagreement with someone I will be asking them to reference this. If you want an explanation of my views, too bad.

This is actually kind of funny since you're admitting at the end there that you're spamming.

What i'm saying is that instead of allowing for documentation in a separate thread in tech support, you have simultaneously closed that valve and also derailed your own thread here to bring up spamming which was wildly off topic, with the evidence of that being two or so pages back. To clarify, you've closed at least 2 threads questioning and observing your behavior, and you have then gone out onto the forum to derail threads to talk about the spam that you're spamming.

"whatever they might make would never be the same as that world of dark streets and bright dreams"

What i'm saying is that instead of allowing for documentation in a separate thread in tech support, you have simultaneously closed that valve and also derailed your own thread here to bring up spamming which was wildly off topic, with the evidence of that being two or so pages back. To clarify, you've closed at least 2 threads questioning and observing your behavior, and you have then gone out onto the forum to derail threads to talk about the spam that you're spamming.

Both of you are incorrect -- the most recent thread-topical post was at post #108, from John Nada, on Russia.

I *would* close this thread, too -- and I still might yet do it -- if it didn't continue to have *some* momentum of on-topic posts to it.

This is all demonstrably and factually untrue, and it's quite stunning you're either deluded enough not to realize it, or brazen enough in your lying that you think people either can't remember or won't check to verify what you're saying is accurate.

The first mentioning of spamming of any kind, and where the conversation became derailed is at post #76 (https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads...14#post2888514) in this thread, well before post #108. It was when you attacked Elleill's questions about praxis, by suggesting that it was part and parcel of all their other posts across the forum, which you then linked with your imaginary "anti-spamming faction" and its "political crusade" against you.

This is all demonstrably and factually untrue, and it's quite stunning you're either deluded enough not to realize it, or brazen enough in your lying that you think people either can't remember or won't check to verify what you're saying is accurate.

The first mentioning of spamming of any kind, and where the conversation became derailed is at post #76 (https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads...14#post2888514) in this thread, well before post #108. It was when you attacked Elleill's questions about praxis, by suggesting that it was part and parcel of all their other posts across the forum, which you then linked with your imaginary "anti-spamming faction" and its "political crusade" against you.

No, you're incorrect -- you're projecting.

This thread *has* gone on long enough -- anyone can start a new one on the same topic, if they like.